Editorial: Robert Gates prepares to leave, takes common sense with him

Tuesday

Mar 1, 2011 at 12:01 AMMar 1, 2011 at 1:17 AM

"In my opinion," Gates said Friday, "any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it."

Defense Secretary Robert Gates' statement was surprising, and it was probably intended to be that way:

"In my opinion," Gates said Friday, "any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it."

This was no offhand remark. The line was included in a speech to West Point cadets, part of Gates' farewell tour of service academies. Gates, who was appointed by President George W. Bush in late 2006, has said he intends to leave his position by the end of this year.

Meanwhile, Gates' predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, has been on a non-apology tour, peddling books and excuses for blindly leading us into the two land wars in Asia and the Middle East that have been so costly. While he admits, reluctantly, that the invasion of Iraq was launched on false premises, Rumsfeld says he wouldn't do anything different.

Gates' remarks were focused on the Army's future, not the past.

"Looking ahead," he said, "in the competition for tight defense dollars within and between the services, the Army also must confront the reality that the most plausible, high-end scenarios for the U.S. military are primarily naval and air engagements."

The most likely missions –– counterterrorism, disaster response, security force protection –– require smaller units that can be quickly deployed, and not large, mechanized land armies.

For all the success the Army units have demonstrated in village-level counter-insurgency operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, Gates advised against turning the Army into a "Victorian nation-building constabulary designed to chase guerrillas, build schools or sip tea."

We hope that means the administration has figured out that, while there must be a U.S. capacity for assisting nations in building the infrastructure of civil society, heavily armed soldiers aren't the best tool for the job. The military should concentrate on fighting and emergency assistance.

Gates' speech raises questions his boss should answer: If the Army isn't good at nation-building, if anyone who supported launching land wars in Asia should have their heads examined, what are we doing in Afghanistan?

While we await an answer, we'll reflect again on how much we will miss Secretary Gates' common sense and candor.